Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-09-18; Planning Commission; ; AV 90-13 KHADEM RESIDENCEDATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: I. - .. APPLICxrION COMPLETE DATE: MARCH 8.1991 SEPTEMBER 18,1991 PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING DEPARTMENT AV 90-13 KHADW REslDENcE - Request for an appeal of the Planning Director's decision to deny an administrative variance for a fence to exceed the maximum allowed height of 42 inches in the front yard setback. RECOMNENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3256 UPHOLDING the Planning Director's decision to DENY AV 90-13, based upon the findings contained therein. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND On June 5, 1991, Staff presented Administrative Variance 90-13 to the Planning Commission as requested by the applicant's appeal of the Planning Director's decision to deny the variance. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission uphold the Planning Director's decision to deny AV 90-13 because 3 of the 4 findings necessary to grant the variance could not be made. After considerable discussion and debate of the facts and findings by the Planning Commission, staff recommended that the item be continued in order to explore alternative designs with the applicant. The Commission motioned to continue AV 90-13 to a date uncertain to be agreed to by staff and the applicant. Staff explored options to resolve the problem of the fence obstructing safe sight distance for motorists exiting the driveway to the south of the subject property and determined that safe sight distance can be obtained with the repositioning of the southern most portion of the fence. The applicant has agreed to reposition this portion of the fence as shown on Exhibit "A". ' AV 90-13 KHADEM -R.ES,dENCE SEPTEMBER 18, 1991 PAGE 2 Staff also determined that there maybe unusual circumstances associated with the front sloping portion of the property. This portion of the fence is designed to step with the slope. In order for fences to be placed on steep slopes it may be necessary to exceed 42 inches in a stepped design and therefore grounds for the variance may exist for this portion. The applicant was, however, not willing to reduce the fence height to 42 inches for those portions of the fence that are not on sloping ground. Therefore two of the four findings cannot be made for this portion of the overheight fence or flat ground. m. ANALYSIS Based on the following four questions, can the findings required for granting a variance be made? 1. Are there exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone? 2. Is this variance necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property owners in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied to the property in question? 3. Will the granting of this variance be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the same vicinity and zone? 4. Will the granting of this variance adversely affect the comprehensive general plan? DISCUSSION Extraordinan or ExceDtional Circumstances There are exceptional circumstances associated with the sloped portion of the property. The portion of fence currently located upon this slope is designed with the top part of the fence stepping with the contours of the slope. En order to allow a fence with a "stepping" type design to function with a practical and aesthetically pleasing appearance, the extension of each step exceeding the height limit of 3 feet 6 inches can be justified. The portion of the fence that is approximately 7 feet high and located upon level grade at the northern part of the lot, however, cannot be justified for exceeding the 3 foot 6 inch height limit. The fence is not needed as a result of any physical constraints imposed by the property, as the fence does not retain soil nor change the property's existing topography. AV 90-13 KHADEM 'REhdENCE SEPTEMBER 18, 1991 PAGE 3 PRESERVATION OF A SUBSTANTIAL PROPERTY RIGHT The portion of the fence that is approximately 7 feet high and located upon level grade at the northern part of the lot is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone. Other properties do contain walls and fences exceeding the maximum allowed height limit, but without permits. Therefore, these property owners do not possess property rights for such walls and fences. However, the portion of the fence which steps with the slope is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right. Other properties in the same vicinity and zone have topography similar to the subject property which are permitted the same right to construct a "stepping" type fence provided that such fence adheres to the same findings and circumstances granted under this variance. DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE Permitting the fence will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located because the fence does not obstruct safe sight distance for motorists exiting the subject property's driveway nor for motorists exiting the driveway directly south of the subject property. By relocating the last pilaster 5 feet west of the front property line and locating the next pilaster directly between the relocated pilaster and existing pilaster, safe sight distance can be obtained in the following manner: The motorist exiting the driveway can first determine if the sidewalk is clear of pedestrians without encroaching into the sidewalk. Once the driver determines that the sidewalk is clear of pedestrians, then he may obtain safe sight distance by partially encroaching into the sidewalk while still remaining clear of the street. ADVERSELY AFFECT THE COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN The General Plan will not be adversely affected because the property consists of one single family home which does not substantially impact any elements of the General Plan, nor the General Plan as a comprehensive document. lv. ENVIRONMENTALREVIEW Section 15270(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act states that no environmental review is required for projects that a public agency rejects or disapproves. ' AV 90-13 -EM RESbENCE SEPTEMBER 18, 1991 PAGE 4 SUMMARY In summary, hdings could be made for those portions of the fence which exist on sloping terrain, however, the property in question does not have any unique or extraordinary circumstances to allow the portion of the fence that is approximately 7 feet high and located on level grade, nor is the applicant being denied a property right for this portion of the fence which other property owners possess in the same neighborhood. Because two of the four findings necessary for granting a variance cannot be made, staff recommends adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 3256 denying Administrative Variance 90-13. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3256 2. Memorandum dated June 5, 1991 3. Staff Report dated June 5, 1991 4. Location Map 5. Attachment "A" - Letter from applicant 6. Exhibit "A" August 15, 1991 DR:km:lh